IA- Court upholds 2,000-foot rule against sex offender

9-20-2008 Iowa:

The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday ruled that a sex offender was not discriminated against when he was charged with violating a residency rule that he claimed was not in effect when he bought his house.

Timothy Willard, 39, of Alburnett, was convicted in 1997 as a sex offender. He bought a house within 2,000 feet of a school in 2005.

Willard was charged with and convicted of an aggravated misdemeanor for violating the residency restrictions. He filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that his rights to due process and other constitutional protections were violated.

Willard contended that he had bought the house based on a February 2004 U.S. District Court of Southern Iowa decision that found the 2,000-foot rule was unconstitutional. He argued there was a federal court injunction in effect when he purchased the house.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision in April 2005. Willard signed a contract to buy the house in May 2005.

Sixth Judicial District Judge Fae Hoover-Grinde ruled his rights were not violated.

Willard then appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, arguing discrimination based on his conviction and denial of equal protection and due process.

The court Friday upheld the district court's decision.

The court stated the enforcement of the rule was to resume Sept. 1, 2005, and Willard shouldn't have been "under any illusion" that he could live in the house.

"Iowa's 2,000 foot rule has withstood constitutional challenges on several occasions," the ruling stated.

Willard argued he was being punished because he was a sex offender, but the court concluded he was punished for violating the residency restriction that was in place to protect children.

Willard also argued the restriction denies his right to make a home with his family and a right to travel based on his criminal history.

The restriction doesn't prevent sex offenders from living with their families, but does regulate where they live, according to the court.

The right to travel argument also was denied because Willard didn't argue that point to the district court and this court couldn't consider it. ..News Source.. by The Gazette